News Flash- The Senate Democrats Anti-Iraq Campaign Lies in Tatters-New Updates at 2:30 PM 2/16/07

The swaggering, blustering confidence of the November election results leading to withdrawal and defunding of the campaign in Iraq now lies in tatters. With no coherent alternative and the poor impression playing games has made on the public regardless of their feelings about continuing, the plan to hamstring and undermine the effort has failed.

First, the Reid Amendment has failed, and not due to any 60 vote threshold. It failed absolutely 50-48. So the Senate has rejected setting timetables or limiting the Presidents ability to direct the use of force despite Harry Reids belief that:

“They May Wind Up With A Surprise. … More Republicans Than They Think May Wind Up Being In Favor Of This.”

In addition the Gregg Amendment -which stated that Congress should not eliminate/reduce funds for troops in the field passed with a huge majority 82-16.

Finally the Murray Amendment – stating that Congress should provide funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field; and health care to those who have served carried the day in overwhelming fashion: 96-2.

I have my own reasons that I think this happened, but Senator Obey may have had a point a few days ago, if you haven’t heard his frustrations about the netroots, go here and listen to him lose message control and slam “Idiot Liberals.”

The bottom line, the Senate has thoroughly rejected the left blogsphere and its allies demand for defunding the mission and withdrawing immediately.

Others blogging. I will update this list periodically:

Jay Redding:

The Democrats have an opportunity to lead on Iraq. Unfortunately, they’d rather try to play to the anti-war base and advocate a deeply irresponsible policy position. The Democrats, despite their majority in the House and the Senate, can’t “stop” the war — what they can do is try to make as much political hay out of it as they can.

I’m not convinced that the Democratic leadership really wants to truly end the war on an arbitrary timetable. To do so would be politically disastrous and leave Iraq a ruin that would quickly spread chaos across the entire region. No smart politician wants to be caught holding that bag. Instead, it seems that the Democrats have every reason to want such resolutions to not succeed, as the war is a political albatross around the neck of Republican lawmakers. If the war really did “end” in 2008, that issue would lose much of its salience.

Postpolitical:

But it does rekindle up one of the curiosities about opposition to the war for me. I note that most of the senators who voted to cut off funding today, voted for and spoke for the original war. Now, I find nothing unusual about how some people have lost heart in the intervening years. That is understandable with any policy. But how is it exactly, that Iraq War II (against Saddam) had more supporters than Iraq War III (against Al Qaeda) does? How is it that the present war, has more conceptual defenders than the previous? Or rather, how is it that there are virtually no defenders of Iraq War III, who were against Iraq War II?This is odd to me, because as support for the war has fallen, it’s actually gained importance in my own estimation. I had a slim margin for support of the tossing of the Baathist regime, I endorsed it on geostrategic grounds. But now that the struggle is against the primary enemy, it becomes impossible to be against in any fashion. I know this to be true of a great many conservatives as well, but they all supported the war against Saddam to some extent. I don’t personally know anyone who opposed the war with Saddam, but now endorses the war against Al Qaeda.

Why is this sentiment not more broadly shared? The rule seems to be, if you were against the war with Saddam, you are against the war with Al Qaeda in Iraq. There’s something rather bizarre about this, in that most of those who feel this way, are still in favor of continued operations in Afghanistan. How can you be in favor of the Afghan War, whilst opposing the Iraq war as it is presently constituted?

The Washington Post

Scrappleface:

The Democrat timeline for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is designed to protect the United States against what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls “the threat and consequences of victory.”The California lawmaker told reporters today that while Republicans focus on how the Democrat proposal undermines the troops and leads inevitably to defeat, “few have paused to consider the risk of victory.”

“A major triumph in the war on terror in Iraq would cause immeasurable political upheaval in the United States,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Unemployment would increase, especially among career politicians who opposed the president’s strategy. Countless millions of dollars would be wasted on doomed political campaigns.”

The Speaker noted that Democrats would be hardest hit by “the unfair distribution of misery” in the wake of a victory in Iraq.

Captain’s Quarters:

The Democrats want to keep digging on this issue until they weaken Republican resolve to see the war through to a successful conclusion. Gordon Smith voted with the Democrats, giving them some hope for more erosion later, but three Democrats voted against the bill. Joe Lieberman joined red-state Senators Mark Pryor and Ben Nelson.What’s next? Another attempt on another day. The Democrats don’t know the meaning of the word surrender, unless it’s on the battlefield.

Gateway Pundit:

Senate agrees not to undermine troops 96-2.

Ann Althouse at Instapundit with links to the New York Times and Kos:

THE IRAQ RESOLUTION, fails in the Senate — by a wide margin.

“Only one Republican, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted in favor of the measure. Two Democrats, Senator Mark Pryor or Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against it, as did Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut. Senators Tim Johnson, a Democrat from South Dakota who is ill, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican who is in Iowa, did not vote.”

Compare the way DailyKos reported the vote:

“For those keeping score at home, those opposing were the 49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman.”

Embarrassing.

McQ at QndO:

Well not really. The Senate measure calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq failed 48-50. One Republican voted for it while 3 Democrats voted against it.

Did anything pass in the Senate? Well, yes:

The Gregg Amendment – Congress should not eliminate/reduce funds for troops in the field – has passed 82–16.

And the the Murray Amendment – Congress should provide funds for training, equipment and other support for troops in the field; and health care to those who have served – has passed 96-2.

So all of this:

“Anti-war Democrats prevailed on a near-party line vote of 36-28 in the House Appropriations Committee, brushing aside a week-old veto threat from the administration and overcoming unyielding opposition from Republicans.”

Doesn’t mean a whole lot in the end.

Before the vote came down Joe Tobacco had some prescient thoughts on Matt Stoller’s admission that things are not as cut and dried as he and others thought:

That’s as clear an admission I’ve seen yet from the “netroots” that the public is NOT 60% or better in favor of an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and it’s certainly an admission that “progressives” have not solidified their hold on the Democratic party. What’s been obvious to anyone who doesn’t self-identify as a “progressive” (or, dirty f****** hippy, as Stoller says) is becoming clear to the “netroots”.Hogwash. Stoller, Bowers, Armstrong, Kos & Co. have known all along that they didn’t have the power to push through their proposed “solution” (surrender) to Iraq, it just suited their agenda to pretend it was so, in order to whip their troops into a frenzy of donating and working for Democratic candidates last year. All the credit in the world to them for that at least…it’s clear they enjoyed some success, particularly in the Webb and Tester races, if not the Lieberman fiasco.

Now, however, they are going to have to adjust their rhetoric to explain the new support they are about to give to Pelosi & Co., despite the fact that the new Democratic majority hasn’t, and won’t deliver on the promises the “netroots” made their constituents.

That is dead right. I don’t really mind that the netroot stars have been so cynical, that is a bipartisan exercise, but I do get tired of the followers not noticing their leaders are as full of it as the rest of the political class.

Update 9:25 PM CST 2/15- Take a gander at Matt Stoller’s latest spin Hat tip Joe Tobacco:

And there’s good news from the Senate. The Reid resolution on withdrawal lost 48-50. Lieberman, Pryor, and Ben Nelson voted no, Gordon Smith voted yes. That means that we had three only defections – over 95% of the Democratic Senate caucus voted for a timeline, which is a far cry from the 22 who voted against the war in 2002. And the Republicans stayed steady at one defection (Chafee voted against the war in 2002).As the Progressive States campaign to pass state resolutions continues, this is putting crushing pressure on the Republicans at all levels. If Republicans get enough pressure, Bush will have to fold. If not, even red state Senate like Cornyn and McConnell can be voted out of office.

2006 was a mandate to restrict Bush and end the war, and Democrats listened. It’s tragic, more than tragic, that the Republicans are going to keep the war going, and it’s our job to get the public to understand that this war can end, and that getting Republicans out of office is the way to end it. Only in doing so can we move the Republicans to either end the war or end their careers.

Yep, this is going well. Keep telling yourself that Matt.

Joe also has a good post on the confused picture of public support or the lack thereof for the campaign.

Update 1 AM CST 2/16:

Doug Mataconis at The Liberty Papers:

More importantly, though, today’s vote in the Senate seems to be a fairly strong indication that the chances of America’s involvement in the Iraq War ending before January 20, 2009 are beyond infinitesimal.

Doug and I disagree about whether that is necessarily a bad thing, but it looks like he is correct.

The Crossed Pond:

But whatever the political implications of these lost votes are, I’m fairly sure of one thing: the LAST thing the Democrats want is a genuine BILL calling for withdraw to pass.

I think we are on the same page on this aspect of the subject.

The American Mind:

What should be disconcerting for Stoller and the netroots is the Gregg Amendment which says, “no funds should be cut off or reduced for American troops in the field” passed 82-16, and the Murry Amendment providing adequate funding for troops training and health care passed 96-2. The Senate rejected defunding the Iraq War.The House is a cut-and-runner’s and lobbyist’s dream. Highlights of the 2007 Emergency Supplemental include $120,000,000 for shrimp research, $283,000,000 in dairy farm subsidies, and a boost in the minimum wage. That will surely put fear in the hearts of our Islamist enemy.

Right Wing Nuthouse: Senate Republicans Stand Tall

Redstate: Democrats Denied Glory

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Senate, Democrats, war, Harry Reid, Republicans

powered by performancing firefox